[blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit

[David Grabiner]

> Again, comments, corrections, and criticisms are welcome.
>
> 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the
> panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty.
> The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If
> they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will
> have no need for concern.
>
> The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is
> being experienced enough to file an appeal.

However, the penalty is only appropriate if the appellants should have known 
that they had no case.  Players with less than 100 masterpoints should not be 
discouraged from filing appeals against players with more than 3000 masterpoints 
by the threat of a penalty (whether an AWMW or a procedural penalty in 
matchpoints).

That said, in this case, I would have imposed the AWMW in this case, because 
East should have known he had no case, assuming he got a decent explanation of 
the law from the TD.  When you preempt, partner makes a penalty double, and you 
have a defensive trick, you should expect the opponents to go down, and the only 
reason you would pull is

> 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's
> admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected
> an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP.
> I'd have assessed a heavier one!

The PP was not imposed for the infraction which led to the appeal (use of UI), 
but for a prior infraction which was not disputed (commenting in a live 
auction).  Therefore, by removing the PP, the AC is saying that the comment 
should not have been penalized at all.